confiscate

I mean, what signals lead you to believe one scenario is more likely than the other?

It didn't sound like he was a weak employee in any way--if anything, he sounded like a strong employee because the founder of Instagram wanted to create a full-time role just to keep him, despite not having much money for the startup back then. I would assume the founder of Instagram is a better judge than I am, of who is good to hire.

It's possible that Instagram would have been more successful if he was there to support it back then.

I actually met Larry at a bitcoin event a while back. Seems like a normal guy. Is there some back story I am not aware of?

The chances are low that life is better now, after losing out on a chance to be an early part of Instagram.

That's like saying a homeless person's life may be better than if he had a home. Ya statistically that scenario is possible.

But if you had a choice, do you really want that homeless person to stay homeless and just keep telling him "your life may be better now"? Or do you want that person's life to improve so that he eventually has a home?

The problem is that, he said he wouldn't do X because he thinks it decreases productivity, and then goes and does X.

That's the problem

the problem is, he said he doesn't smoke weed because it decreases productivity, and then smokes weed anyways.

Nothing he said makes sense anymore

Not browsing the web at all, also avoids the GDPR/cookie popup spam.

That solution works 100% of the time. It blocks out 100% of the GDPR popup spam.

Might as well say:

"Yet another reason to not browse anything on the web"

because it used to be 4000 startups and now it's 15000!

The point is, all the articles raising alarm bells saying Tesla is going bankrupt SOON, it will run out of funds, it will collapse. Because math.

Now, all the articles are focused on SEC rules for a tweet.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4135995-teslas-coming-bankr...

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/tesla-is-just-months-away-...

just look on Seeking Alpha

because, based on rational math, if you add this expense and minus that, the result is 0 in 3 months. QED

now that bankruptcy sounds unlikely, all the news articles are focusing on how a tweet could be illegal

e.g. they go out of their way to call their friends and family to come in 7 a.m. to help squeeze orange juice for you

then your stupid "test" just "eliminated" an outstanding provider

you are the client, can afford to play games. To you, it's just a test, just screwing around. But to the manager/provider, it's actual business, income, livelihood, food on the table for kids at home

maybe act like an Adult and not play stupid test games? It's business

Seems like a good strategy actually. The strategy got Donald Trump the Presidency.

(edit): why all the downvotes? I realize my comment might have come off as sarcastic. Sorry that was not my intent--I just wanted to point out something I noticed.

Difference of Pyramid vs Ponzi

- Ponzi: the fund manager/fraudster is the one who recruits new members

- Pyramid: existing members have to recruit other new members

In both schemes, there is no underlying product/service. Money contributions from new members are used to pay existing members.

To be clear, Tesla/SpaceX is NOT Ponzi, NOT Pyramid.

often, people just use it as a drop-in replacement for the term "organized fraud"

example: "isn't JetBlue air-miles just a classical Ponzi scheme?"

If $7 / month is too high, then any price below $7 is too high.

He should just outright say he wanted it for free, instead of complaining about price

if I lower it to $3/user/month, will you sign up right now?

"Authorities have .. permitted trading of bitcoin in Venezuela, though they have heavily fined and detained people who use computers to earn bitcoins by auditing online cryptocurrency transactions. Such “mining” operations use immense amounts of electricity, which is heavily subsidised in Venezuela — meaning the state essentially winds up paying for the process."

"few businesses openly advertise that they accept cryptocurrency out of concern they will be extorted. It’s still difficult to make many purchases in Venezuela with bitcoin"

https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/venezuelans-seeing...

In your example of the early internet (too slow to load webpage, to streaming video), you described a direct benefit you experienced personally (you needed to access a piece of content and it got that to you fast)

But when you use crypto, you said it's revolutionary because it "wrenches power from centralized authorities". That is not a direct benefit you experienced personally. That description is a high-level concept.

So, it's hard for me to see the parallel.

Because the example you said about the internet (from loading webpage to video streaming) does sound amazing. What's the "parallel" for crypto that you see?

But I am pretty sure that if, say, a student can't pass a multiplication test, but you give that student an A+ anyways, and then let that student into a "top calculus class", that's going to hurt the student more than it helps.

Ya sure the student gets to mingle with better students. But what you would usually get is, the student would end up being someone who mentions a lot of buzz words like "fractal integrals" just to fit in, but have zero idea what is going on, or what is being taught in class.

You do not intervene after the test. At that point the learning process for that material is already over. The student has already "missed out" on the learning opportunity. You would just be giving a good grade to someone who doesn't know the material.

Yes we need to help folks who are intergenerationally poor. But, you do that by helping their kids learn better and meet the testing bar.

You are not helping them by lowering the bar for them. Giving the kids better grades even if they don't know the material, would actually hurt them.

If a test contains questions that favor a particular race, then that is an outright problem, and schools should stop that.

In this case, it's actually the opposite. When a test is in English, often Asians have to learn English, which is often not their primary language at home. So by default, an English-speaking race taking a test, has a HUGE advantage over an Asian test taker.

Which is why the stereotype is that "asians are good at math". Asians are NOT particularly good in math. It's just that in math tests, it's mostly numbers. The language barrier becomes less of an issue, the playing field levels out, so you suddenly notice Asians tend to get higher scores.

I suspect it would be the same for, say, geography tests, if the same test was translated to an Asian language. Suddenly "Asians are good at geography". Not really.

If anything, tests in English are culturally slanted away from Asians where English is often not their primary language.

You need to help that student get better, so he/she can achieve the higher grade on his/her own.

If a student can't do multiplication in a test, you don't just "give more points" to that student, for "equality" in the classroom. You need to teach that student to learn multiplication.

You need to bring that student "up" and not everyone else "down".

It's great that schools are looking for a better "mix" of ethnicities in the incoming class, but they should encourage the underrepresented ethnicities to do better, in tests or other race-blind admission standards.

They should not put an admission "cap" based on the color of your skin

It has nothing to do with Silicon Valley. The geography is meaningless. The only thing that matters is staying ahead of the curve. It's always going to be hard for GM to do that, because it's focus is always going to be on incremental improvements of the same way of doing things. The "years of design and manufacturing experience" you mention.

Look at their $1B acquisition in Cruise Automation. Like you said, GM is not a power company, its' a car company. Its' business is cars. GM should have developed self-driving tech internally, and not had to buy it. Cars is GM's job. But GM missed that boat entirely, because everyone in GM is focused on incremental improvements on manufacturing.

Even your comment mentions that "most people don't care about EV right now." EV is not a big focus for GM. Sure it has the Chevy Bolt, but that only began development 10 years after Tesla started. GM does not care about EVs right now. It's focus is still on manufacturing traditional cars, and will continue to be this way until someone else forces them to change.

if meeting the 5000 production goal is irrelevant, then missing the old production goals would be just as irrelevant, right?